Izzo v. Berryhill

Background

Jane Izzo brought the case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits judicial review of a Social Security benefits decision. She challenged the Commissioner’s decision denying her applications for Supplemental Security Income and disability benefits. Izzo alleged physical and psychological disabilities, including back injuries.

Her application was initially denied. After a hearing on May 12, 2017, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the application on November 28, 2017, finding that Izzo was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The Social Security Appeals Council denied review on or about September 18, 2018.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy, who recommended denying the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting Izzo’s motion to send the case back to the agency for further proceedings. Neither side timely objected to that recommendation.

Court’s Review

Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. Judge Roman found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full.

The court explained that judicial review of a Social Security decision is limited to whether the agency applied the correct legal standard and whether its conclusions were supported by substantial evidence. The court does not independently decide whether a claimant is disabled. But when the agency applies the wrong legal standard or leaves important gaps in the administrative record, a remand for further proceedings is appropriate.

Reasons for Remand

The magistrate judge determined that the ALJ’s finding that Izzo was not disabled was legally flawed and unsupported by substantial evidence. In evaluating whether Izzo could perform her past relevant work, the ALJ failed to make the required inquiry into her work history. Izzo testified that she had worked as a bank teller and branch manager. The opinion states that work combining significant elements of two or more positions may be a composite job, and that an ALJ may commit reversible error by considering only one of the job descriptions.

The vocational expert’s opinion was also flawed because it was based on an incomplete record that lacked relevant information. In addition, the ALJ made inadequate or inconsistent findings concerning the medical evidence and opinions presented at the hearing. The ALJ gave “some weight” to consultant Dr. Nagendranath Dhanyamrayu’s opinion and “limited weight” to treating physician Dr. Aswini Choudhury’s opinion. According to the opinion, this left a gap concerning the extent and effects of Izzo’s medical condition and how her impairments affected her ability to perform work-related physical functions.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in its entirety. The court denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Izzo’s cross-motion to the extent it sought a remand to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions and the action. The opinion does not state that the court awarded benefits.